This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, cagney at redhat dot com
- Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 22:54:40 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message
- References: <200202011729.g11HTY301250@reddwarf.cygnus.com> <3C5DF2A2.2010601@cygnus.com>
Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > Andrew, you recently added this comment:
> >
> > ! FIXME: @emph{There is no description of how to operate when a specific
> > ! thread context has been selected (ie.@: does 'k' kill only that thread?)}.
> >
> > Maybe with a little discussion we can resolve this?
> > I believe the 'k' message is only sent in one context:
> > when the user asks gdb to kill the inferior process.
> > On a native system, that is clearly interpreted as meaning
> > to kill all of the threads. Is there any reason why we
> > should not agree that it means the same thing on an
> > embedded target?
>
> Hmm, yes. You're right. I shouldn't be trying to specify ``future
> behavour'' in the protocol. Rather it should just be specifying things
> based on GDB's existing behavour on a well implemented native system.
Well, we might conceivably want to be able to kill
a specified thread or process on an embedded system --
but at present we can't do that on a native system either.